Critique of Michel de Montaigne’s moral relativism

We all need clear philosophical principles to make accurate, quick decisions. In the absence of principles, decisions depend on emotions, prejudice and superstition. The essayist Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) asked himself how to make good decisions, and recorded his reasoning in detail. Montaigne was puzzled by the wide variety of opinions that people hold when confronted with the same facts. He devoted his essay “That what’s called good and evil mostly depends on our opinions” to analysing this matter. Although Montaigne drew the wrong conclusion, his essay is worth reading to immunise oneself against the philosophical errors of relativism, emotionalism and escapism. Montaigne invoked historical examples that, in his eyes, are pointing to the conclusion that moral judgement only possesses subjective value. Thus, he affirms that moral judgement cannot be universal, objective, and permanent. Instead of looking for moral principles, Montaigne denies their existence. Instead of calling for philosophical consistency and accuracy, he praises the humility and tolerance of people who refuse to pass judgement. Montaigne employs examples drawn from ancient history, mostly from Greek and Rome. For instance, he points to the fact that, in the battles between the Roman Republic and King Pyrrhus (318-272 BC), Roman soldiers fought orderly, keeping their formation, while Pyrrhus' soldiers fought chaotically. However, says Montaigne, the Roman order and discipline failed to win over Pyrrhus' disorganised troops. Those battles lacked a clear outcome because both opponents suffered major losses. Pyrrhus claimed victory, but in reality, his troops had been decimated. The more battles he fought, the more men he lost, without barely gaining any land. Shortly after, he decided to abandon his ambition of conquering Italy. Montaigne draws the wrong conclusion: He claims that it is impossible to determine whether the organised fighting style of the Romans is superior to Pyrrhus' chaotic manoeuvres. He tries to argue that one style is as good as another, that nobody can really tell, and that this proves that moral values are subjective. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/critique-of-michel-de-montaignes-moral-relativism/